The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1887-05-18

other questions. ," Have they not
even at the cost of fiiends and help,
utterly left al moral andsreligious or
CARNATIONS 10 their owntwcrk rigidly
withholding any organic union with
this committee? Z by what process of
reasoning then can you Justify your
advice to the anti-prohibition conven-
ton? Having thus noticed your last
and most important reason for align
ing yourself against prohibition, let
us examine the next in value. You
say "After looking through the sa-
cred book from Genesis TO the end, |
find an exhortation to every virtue aud
rebuke for every sin, but nowhere
findthe condemnation of the making
or drinking Of wine" This Statement
with application has appeared for
many years in the campaignNtrac is
sued by the dis,illers of sour mash
whiskey. Their tracts containing IL
are flooding Texas now. They Away
shelter tho saloons and distillers be-
hind Bible grape juice, as you do now.
TO reply TO this objection you well
know would subject the prohibition
committee to the charge and prejudice
of making religious crusade. Any
use of the Bible on their part in this
discussion would be met with the obs
lection that the sacred Sc .ipsures are
neither The constitution nor statute
book OF secular governments That
such a supposition implies union of
church and state, so justly obnoxious
TO every American citizen. would
again respectfully PROFOUND to you
other questions.
Suppose it is proven that the Bible
iustilies state prohibition will that be
considered settlement of this contro-
versy? Only let that appear authori-
lively, and no warhorse ever rushed
more gladly to battle than prohibit
tionists would rejoice to accept the is
sue. Reflect for a moment, and ask
why the 1000 preachers Of Texas, who
have made that book their life study.
favor prohibition with such remarka-
BILE approach. to unanimity? There
are doubtless exceptions, and honora-
BILE ones, but they are exceptions, so
few in number, as to showimore clear
" by contrast the colossal outlines of
the overwhelming majority. SUPPOSE
the lawyers of Texas approached as
nearly to unanimity in regard
to certain legal propositions,
would it not be accounted presnmp.
tlous in man not n lawyer to affirm
that they were all wrong in their in.
terpretations of their own text books !!
And, without going into the argu-
ment, is it not fair presumption
against your position that preachers,
SO nearly unanimous, and the Chris
tlans as rule, have reached differ
ent conclusion from your own? Again,
from what part of this amendment do
YOU find warrant for speaking of the
'drinking of winc?" Or where do
you find in it suggestion about
" changing moral convictions by
force? 7" And by what coDjuration do
you end in it the fires of the inquisi-
tion,' or the burning of Massachu-
sets witches?" And if you DO find
them there, how could you reconcile it
to your conscience to recommend the
submitting of such an awful measure
to a vote of the people? Are the gem
tlemen managing the prohibition-cam-
paign- many OF them your fellow
townsmen, ana your equals in both
manhood and Democracy - are these
gentlemen witch burners and inquisi-
tors? Take the roll of their central
committee and compare it with yours;
take their club rolls and compare
them with yours, and wherein on any
point of responsibility or Democracy
do they suffer by the comparison?
And what, allow me to ask, is the
real value of your generalities about
the fifty years prosperity OF Texas,
without prohibition How much is
such an argument worth? If it proves
anything, il would prove that you
ought not now TO be governor, since
Texas had gotten along so well with
out YOU for fifty years. 1t would be
equally forceful against all new meas
ures. 1t would chrystalize civiliza-
ton and petrify progress aud stop the
moving hand upon the dial plate OF
time.
You certainly got this conceit from
Washington Irving's Rip Van Wrinkle.
And when you talk about the shades
of evil cast by the liquor traffic over
your rose-colored retrospect Of fifty
years, you cert ,inly put ii mildly, con-
sidering the number and blackness of
the shadows
But when you claim that present
laws are competent TO deal with these
abuses, you array yourself against the
most widely known and best attested
facts of history. Thereis not farce
enacted to-day on the boards of theat7
ricaleomedy, so farGcalas the failure
of these laws If thdre were no tragc-
DIV MIXED with IL We might laugh at